If we only look at the price, Bitcoin and Ethereum have performed quite well over the past two years: against a backdrop of high macro interest rates and fluctuating geopolitical situations, they still recorded double-digit gains and have been included in the asset allocation lists of more mainstream institutions. According to the old narrative of the "crypto world," this should be another mid-cycle peak in the "four-year cycle."
However, the emotional feedback from the market is quite subtle: on-chain activity has not expanded in sync, extreme FOMO among retail investors has noticeably cooled compared to the last cycle, and instead, asset management companies, publicly listed companies' finance departments, and stablecoin issuers have become the main players in trading volume. The simple narrative of "halving must lead to a bull market" and "a cycle every four years" is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile with reality. The question is—if this rise is no longer just "another cycle," what does it actually signify?
From the perspective of a long-term observer, five emerging trends may be more important than any price surge: the evolution of Digital Asset Treasury companies (DAT) to 2.0, the ubiquity of stablecoins, the end of the "four-year cycle theory," U.S. investors connecting to offshore liquidity, and the accelerating complexity of the financial product system built around Bitcoin. Together, they point to a judgment: the crypto market is shifting from "explosive logic" to "structural logic."
Over the past two years, the rise of Digital Asset Treasury companies (DAT) has been phenomenal. Various companies that were originally unrelated to crypto—from consumer brands to niche manufacturing—have announced plans to allocate part of their assets to Bitcoin, with some even incorporating this into their brand narratives and stock price stories. The market has become extremely noisy: some companies boldly declare "all in on Bitcoin" but cannot present a clear profit model; others have added a long list of so-called "high-growth crypto assets" beyond Bitcoin, which are essentially speculative tokens lacking fundamental support; and some management teams enjoy the benefits of rising coin prices while maintaining high expenditures, high incentives, and opaque capital operations.
The results are unsurprising—the secondary market valuations have provided a cold pricing reality. Many DAT stocks have long traded below the book value of their held crypto assets, with investors viewing them as "discount funds" rather than capable operating companies. Regulatory attention has also shifted from early concerns about "technical risks" to "governance and information disclosure." Currently, the industry is entering a "DAT clearing period." Companies that can truly transition to 2.0 must meet two conditions: first, they must genuinely use mainstream digital assets like Bitcoin as underlying reserves, rather than turning their treasury into a high-risk speculative pool; second, beyond "holding," they must develop clear fee models and risk management frameworks around these assets—such as custody, lending, hedging, and settlement financial services—rather than remaining in the logic of "holding and waiting for appreciation."
In other words, the future of DAT does not lie in "putting Bitcoin on the balance sheet," but in whether they can "create sustainable excess returns on top of Bitcoin." Only when these companies bring their stock prices closer to the net asset value of their holdings and prove through sustainable business practices that they are not merely "Bitcoin ancillary codes," but true "Bitcoin financial service providers," can this sector be considered mature.
If Bitcoin is the "original asset" of this system, then stablecoins are becoming its "blood." In the past, stablecoins were more often seen as settlement tools between exchanges and transfer stations for off-market funds; now they are moving towards broader scenarios—cross-border payments, corporate fund management, DeFi collateral assets, and even becoming a "daily dollar substitute" for residents in some high-inflation countries. The appeal of stablecoins is not hard to understand: for businesses, they provide near real-time cross-border settlement capabilities, bypassing the slow and expensive traditional clearing systems; for individuals, they are a minimalist tool to avoid domestic currency depreciation and quickly enter and exit the crypto market; for institutions, they serve as both a hedging tool and a "ticket" to access on-chain yield pools and liquidity pools.
However, the problem is—when a narrative is too successful, it means that a large number of "unnecessary participants" will flood in. The stablecoin sector is already showing signs of oversupply: new "anchored assets" are emerging, some pegged to a basket of currencies, others to commodities; various wallets, payment applications, and new "L1" chains are all promoting slogans of being "more suitable for stablecoin circulation"; and in the regulatory gray area that has not yet fully materialized, some issuers remain opaque about their reserve assets.
It is foreseeable that in the next year or two, the stablecoin field will undergo a round of "shuffle-style integration." Excessive projects lacking real use cases or unclear reserves will be eliminated or merged into leading players; users and institutions will increasingly concentrate on a few issuers and infrastructures—those players who are ahead in reserve management, audit transparency, and compliance implementation. The ubiquity of stablecoins does not mean "anyone can issue one." It is more likely to mean: stablecoins will increasingly resemble "financial public utilities," controlled by fewer entities but utilized by more industries.
The "four-year halving cycle" of Bitcoin was once one of the simplest and most compelling narratives in the entire industry. Countless people bet according to the script of "halving—price increase—bubble—collapse—restart," even treating it as a form of "faith in mathematics." However, over time, this model is starting to fail. The reason lies not on-chain, but off-chain—the structure of market participants has fundamentally changed. On one hand, the proportion of long-term holders and institutional investors is continuously rising; their capital duration is longer, and they are more tolerant of short-term volatility. On the other hand, the launch of Bitcoin spot ETFs has significantly lowered the barriers to entry and exit, making the "price response" paths more dispersed and diverse.
Under these conditions, what is more likely to emerge in the future is a "noisy long slope of gradual increase": Bitcoin will no longer experience extreme bull and bear cycles in short periods but will be dominated by longer-term capital flows and macro variables. Volatility is gradually converging, sometimes even completely driven by interest rate cycles, dollar liquidity, or geopolitical risks. The identity of holders is also changing—from speculators to allocators, from short-term traders chasing price movements to long-term institutions aiming for asset allocation and hedging. This does not mean that Bitcoin has lost its imaginative space. On the contrary, it is evolving from a "story-driven cyclical asset" to an "institution-driven long-term asset." After the script of the four-year cycle exits, what remains is not a more mundane market, but a more rational and structured market reality—a Bitcoin that is harder to be swayed by emotions but can be held long-term by capital.
Another change, often overlooked but with far-reaching implications, is that the relationship between U.S. investors and offshore crypto liquidity is being redefined. For a long time, U.S. regulators have maintained a high-pressure stance on offshore platforms, with large exchanges either exiting or being forced to cut off U.S. users; meanwhile, the truly deep spot and derivatives markets mostly still operate offshore. This has created a difficult-to-cross chasm between the "sense of security" of U.S. domestic platforms and the "depth" of offshore markets.
However, this chasm is being "bridged." In the next two to three years, as the regulatory framework gradually clarifies, U.S. compliant intermediaries, custodians, and brokers may provide investors with channels to access offshore liquidity while meeting KYC/AML requirements. At the same time, the cross-border circulation capability of compliant stablecoins makes the path of "dollar funds—on-chain assets—offshore liquidity pools" clearer, traceable, and more easily accepted by regulators.
In other words, this does not mean letting U.S. capital "completely go out," but rather allowing it to participate in global price discovery under clear terms and transparent paths. This shift in model will have dual effects: for U.S. investors, they will be closer to real market depth and product diversity; for the global market, the U.S. regulatory logic will shift from "restrictor" to "rule maker," no longer merely influencing behavior through "prohibition," but shaping the order of the entire industry through institutional participation.
Related: Opinion: Stablecoins deserve better infrastructure, and they have finally arrived
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
